THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 11/3/2014

USAID/Ghana  Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

CDCS Goal: Ghana's Transition Towards Established Middle Income Status Accelerated

Development Objective: DO 2 – Sustainable and Broadly Shared Economic Growth

Intermediate Result: IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity

Sub-Intermediate Result: IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity.

Name of Performance Indicator: Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance (RAA) (WOG) EG.3.2-17         

Performance Plan and Report Indicator:

Foreign Assistance Framework: EG.3.2-17          Indicator Type: Outcome

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): 

This indicator measures the total number of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers (of food and nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products), as well as individual processors (not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource managers, etc. that applied improved technologies anywhere within the food and fiber system as a result of U.S. Government assistance during the reporting year. This includes innovations in efficiency, value-addition, post-harvest management, marketing, sustainable land management, forest and water management, managerial practices, and input supply delivery. Technologies and practices to be counted here are agriculture-related, including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation (including, but not limited to, carbon sequestration, clean energy, and energy efficiency as related to agriculture). Significant improvements to existing technologies and practices should also be counted.

Examples for listed technology type disaggregates include:

-Crop Genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or drought tolerant maize, or stress tolerant rice) and/or more resilient to climate impacts; improved germplasm.

-Cultural Practices: e.g. seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density and moulding; mulching.

-Livestock Management: e.g. improved livestock breeds; livestock health services and products such as vaccines; improved livestock handling practices.

-Wild Fishing Technique/Gear: e.g. sustainable fishing practices; improved nets, hooks, lines, traps, dredges, trawls; improved hand gathering, netting, angling, spearfishing, and trapping practices.

-Aquaculture Management: e.g. improved fingerlings; improved feed and feeding practices; fish disease control; pond culture; pond preparation; sampling & harvesting; carrying capacity & fingerling management.

-Pest Management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved insecticides and pesticides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of insecticides and pesticides.

-Disease Management: e.g. improved fungicides; appropriate application of fungicides.

-Soil-related Fertility and Conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter, mulching); improved fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; erosion control.

-Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.

-Water Management -non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water use practices; improved water quality testing practices; mulching.

-Climate Mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to other alternatives. Examples include low-or no-till practices, efficient nitrogen fertilizer use.

-Climate Adaptation: technologies promoted with the explicit objective of adapting to current climate change concerns. Examples include drought and flood resistant varieties, conservation agriculture.

-Marketing and Distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices; improved input purchase technologies and practices; improved commodity sale technologies and practices; improved market information system technologies and practices.

-Post-harvest Handling & Storage: e.g. improved packing house technologies and practices; improved transportation; decay and insect control; temperature and humidity control; improved quality control technologies and practices; sorting and grading.

-Value-Added Processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including biodegradable packaging; food and chemical safety technologies and practices; improved preservation technologies and practices.

Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; nonmarket-related information technology; improved record keeping; improved budgeting and financial management.

Note there is some overlap between the disaggregates listed here and those listed under EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices as a result of U.S. Government assistance. This overlap is limited to technologies and practices that relate to activities focused on land. The list of disaggregates here is much broader because with this indicator we aim at tracking efforts focused on individuals (as opposed to land area) across the value chain in both land and nonland-based activities.

If an activity is promoting a technology for multiple-benefits, the beneficiary applying the technology may be reported under each relevant Technology Type category. For example, mulching could be reported under Cultural practices (weed control), Soil-related fertility and conservation (organic content) and Water management (moisture control), depending on how (for what purpose(s)/benefit(s)) the activity is promoted it to the beneficiary farmers.

If a beneficiary applied more than one improved technology during the reporting year, count the beneficiary under each technology type (i.e. double-count) and under each commodity to which s/he applied an improved technology. However, count the beneficiary only once in the applicable Sex disaggregate category

If more than one beneficiary in a household is applying improved technologies, count each beneficiary in the household who does so.

Since it is very common for Feed the Future activities to promote more than one improved technology, not all of which are applied by all beneficiaries at once, this approach allows Feed the Future to accurately track and count the uptake of different technology types, and to accurately count the total number of farmers applying improved technologies. See EG.3.2-18 for an example of how to double-count hectares and farmers.

If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once during the reporting year, count the beneficiary once under each type of technology that was applied during any of the production cycles, but not more than once even if a technology is applied in multiple production cycles during the reporting year. For example, because of new access to irrigation as a result of a Feed the Future activity, a farmer can now cultivate a second crop during the dry season in addition to her/his regular crop during the rainy season. Whether the farmer applies Feed the Future promoted improved seed to her/his plot during one season and not the other, or in both the rainy and dry season, s/he would only be counted once in the Crop Genetics category under the Technology Type disaggregate. Note however that the area planted with improved seed should be counted each time it is cultivated under the indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies.

Beneficiaries who are part of a group that apply improved technologies on a demonstration or other common plot, are not counted as having individually applied an improved technology. Instead, the group should be counted as one (1) beneficiary group and reported under indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices. The area of the communal plot should be counted under indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies.

If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g., a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the lead farmer should be counted as a beneficiary for this indicator. In addition, the area of the demonstration plot should be counted under indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare, if applicable, and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies. However, if the demonstration or training plot is cultivated by extension agents or researchers (a demonstration plot in a research institute, for instance), neither the area nor the extension agent or researcher should be counted under this indicator, EG.3-6, or EG.3.2-18.

This indicator counts individuals who applied improved technologies, whereas indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices counts firms, associations, or other group entities that applied improved technologies or practices. However, in most cases, this indicator should not count as individuals members of an organization that applied a technology or practice. For example, if a producer association implements a new computer-based accounting system during the reporting year, the association would be counted under indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations…applying, but the members of the producer association would not be counted as having individually-applied an improved technology/practice under this indicator. However, there are some cases where both the group entity should be counted under indicator EG.3.2-20 and its members counted under this indicator. For example, a producer association purchases a dryer and then provides drying services for a fee to its members. In this scenario, the producer association can be counted under EG.3.2-20 and any association member that uses the dryer service can be counted as applying an improved technology/practice under this indicator.

If a direct beneficiary sample survey is used to collect data for this indicator, the sample weighted estimate of the total number of beneficiaries for each Technology Type and Sex disaggregate must be calculated using appropriate sample weights before being entered into FTFMS to ensure accurate calculation of weighted averages across all implementing mechanisms at the Operating Unit level as well as across all Feed the Future countries for global reporting.

Please refer to the Feed the Future Agricultural Indicators Guide (https://agrilinks.org/library/feed-the-future-agindicators-guide) for collecting and interpreting the data required for this indicator.

Unit of Measure:    Number (people)

Disaggregated by:  

Value chain actor type:

-Producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products)

-Others (e.g. individual processors (but not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource managers, extension agents).

Technology type (see explanation in definition, above): Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Livestock management, Wild fishing technique/gear, Aquaculture management, Pest management, Disease management, Soil-related fertility and conservation, Irrigation, Water management-non-irrigation based, Climate mitigation, Climate adaptation, Marketing and distribution, Post-harvest—handling & storage, Value-added processing, Other

Sex: Male, Female

FTFMS-only disaggregate: Commodity. Activities promoting sustainable intensification and similar crop diversification strategies where double-counting beneficiaries is complicated and not meaningful are not required to disaggregate beneficiaries by commodity, and should use the "Disaggregates not available" category under the Commodities disaggregate

Rationale or Management Utility (optional): Technological change and its adoption by different actors in the agricultural value chain will be critical to increasing agricultural productivity. In the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework, this indicator falls under Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source: Implementing Partners, Sample survey of direct beneficiaries, activity or association records, farm records

Method of Data Acquisition: Records of individuals engaged in new technologies, project reports and assessments

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID:

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):

Location of Data Storage (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations and Significance (optional):  Over-reporting of adoption of tools/technologies by respondents

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional):  Periodic field verification/spot checks

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis (optional):

Presentation of Data (optional):  

Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 

Mission/Team Review (optional): 

BASELINE AND TARGETS

Baseline Timeframe (optional): 

Rationale for Targets (optional):

Other Notes (optional):

CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: 

Other Notes (optional): 

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 17/01/2017

USAID/Ghana  Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

CDCS Goal: Ghana's Transition Towards Established Middle Income Status Accelerated

Development Objective: DO 2 – Sustainable and Broadly Shared Economic Growth

Intermediate Result:

IR 2.1: Increased competitiveness of major food chains

Sub-Intermediate Result:

IR 2.1.1: Increased agricultural productivity

Name of Performance Indicator: Number of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving business development services from USG assisted sources

Performance Plan and Report Indicator:

Foreign Assistance Framework: FtF 4.5.2-37 Indicator Type: Output

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Total number of micro (1-10) small (11-50) and medium (51-100) enterprises (parenthesis = number of employees) receiving services from Feed the Future-supported enterprise development providers. Number of employees refers to full time-equivalent (FTE) workers during the previous month. MSMEs include producers (farmers). Producers should be classified as micro, small or medium-enterprise based on the number of FTE workers hired (permanent and/or seasonal) during the previous 12 months. ). If a producer does not hire any permanent or seasonal labor, s/he should be considered a micro-enterprise. Services may include, among other things, business planning, procurement, technical support in production techniques, quality control and marketing, micro-enterprise loans, etc. . Clients may be involved in agricultural production, agro-processing, community forestry, fisheries, input suppliers, or other small businesses receiving USG assistance. Additional examples of enterprise-focused services include: Market Access: These services identify/establish new markets for small enterprise (SE) products; facilitate the creation of links between all the actors in a given market and enable buyers to expand their outreach to, and purchases from, SEs; enable SEs to develop new products and produce them to buyer specifications. Input supply: These services help SEs improve their access to raw materials and production inputs; facilitate the creation of links between SEs and suppliers and enable the suppliers to both expand their outreach to SEs and develop their capacity to offer better, less expensive inputs. Technology and Product Development: These services research and identify new technologies for SEs and look at the capacity of local resource people to produce, market, and service those technologies on a sustainable basis; develop new and improved SE products that respond to market demand. Training and Technical Assistance: These services develop the capacity of enterprises to better plan and manage their operations and improve their technical expertise; develop sustainable training and technical assistance products that SEs are willing to pay for and they foster links between service providers and enterprises. Finance: These services help SEs identify and access funds through formal and alternative channels that include supplier or buyer credits, factoring companies, equity financing, venture capital, credit unions, banks, and the like; assist buyers in establishing links with commercial banks (letters of credit, etc.) to help them finance SE production directly. Infrastructure: These services establish sustainable infrastructure (refrigeration, storage, processing facilities, transport systems, loading equipment, communication centers, and improved roads and market places) that enables SEs to increase sales and income. Policy/Advocacy: These services carry out subsector analyses and research to identify policy constraints and opportunities for SEs; facilitate the organization of coalitions, trade organizations, or associations of business people, donors, government officials, academics, etc. to effect policies that promote the interests of SEs.

Only count the MSME once per reporting year, even if multiple services are received. In the case that an individual MSME participates in multiple trainings or technical assistance in one year, it should be counted as one MSME enterprise. This indicator should count MSMEs receiving trainings or development services within the reporting year, not an accumulation of all trainings that MSME received in the life of USG activity.

Unit of Measure:    Number

Disaggregated by:  

Size: Micro, Small, Medium, as defined above

MSME Type: Agricultural producer, Input supplier, Trader, Output processors, Non-agriculture, Other

Sex of owner/producer: Male, Female, Joint, n/a.

Rationale or Management Utility (optional): This indicator measures directly the access to business development services which contributes to expanding markets and trade.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source: training participant records, lists of microenterprises supported

Method of Data Acquisition: Review of training participant records

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID:

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):

Location of Data Storage (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations and Significance (optional): 

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional): 

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis (optional):

Presentation of Data (optional):  

Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 

Mission/Team Review (optional): 

BASELINE AND TARGETS

Baseline Timeframe (optional): 

Rationale for Targets (optional):

Other Notes (optional):

CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: 

Other Notes (optional): 

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 11/3/2014